125
Denial and Descretation of Lincoln on his Holiday, or Slavery as WMD and KKK as terrorists-insurgents : Swingers Discussion 98163
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsDenial and Descretation of Lincoln on his Holiday, or Slavery as WMD and KKK as terrorists-insurgents
TOPIC: Denial and Descretation of Lincoln on his Holiday, or Slavery as WMD and KKK as terrorists-insurgents
Created by: sappholovers
Original Starting post for this thread:
Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis agreed on at least one thing.

Davis called slavery, in an 1861 speech, the interest of "transcendent magnitude" in the conflict between North and South.

Lincoln in his 1865 Inaugural Address declared, "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."

Davis and Lincoln shared a belief that conflict over the political economy of slavery was at the heart and soul of secession and the war. Anyone who denies this belongs to the Confederate pride school of history, a school of history that has roots in the effort of Southerners to frame the Civil War as a war of Northern aggression (a 'rape' of the South in Lucky's words) and about economics, not slavery. But this is denial, DEEP DENIAL, out of bad conscience. It is a denial that the South's intent with secession was to defend and protect slavery as an economic institution, a view of slavery that was blind to its moral evil.

Lincoln and the North fought a war to stop the spread of a WMD: the weapon of mass destruction that was slavery. Lincoln and the Republican party did not want to see this WMD spread into new states, but the South wanted to protect its WMD just as Iran wants to protect its nuclear facilities: they felt it as an essential part of their power.

The Civil War, for Lincoln and the North, became a crusade against evil--the evil of slavery, and in his 2nd Inaugural Address, Lincoln saw God willing this war with Old Testament vengeance against those who had broken a convenant with God's Word (and with the Declaration of Independence, the sacred text of the USA).

The North won, and the slaves were emancipated. But White Supremacy persisted in the South, and the KKK became an American terrorist organization, terrorizing a minority tribe into submission to White Supremacy. The NAACP arose to combat the terrorism of the KKK and the mob action of lynching, and then the Civil Rights movement arose to end segregation and legalized White Supremacy, and again many in the South resisted this freedom struggle led by MLK Jr. Southern resistance to end of white supremacy was an insurgency against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with its commitments to equality, liberty and justice.

Slavery = WMD KKK = terrorist group

Lincoln led a war against a WMD that was more dangerous than any possessed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam, it turns out, had no WMDs. The South did. Their tyranny over a minority tribe of peoples destroyed human rights and was a brutal act of repression that made Saddam's crimes look like those of a puppu dog tyrant.

GoTo Page: 1 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 10 
User Details are only visible to members.
The domestic terrorists of the liberal socialist should be treated same as foreign terrorists.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Lucky2: "I have never in my life supported the south and will never do so....."

I am assuming you are talking about the "South" during the era of slaveholding or the Civil War.

Well, then, I guess I must speak up for the South and its people.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were slaveholders, but I love and deeply respect much about them. Jefferson gave us the Declaration, and Madison gave us the original draft of the Constitution and the brilliance of his contributions to the Federalist Papers. Jefferson also gave us Monticello (with its slave quarters) and the 10,000 books from his personal library that formed the basis of the Library of Congress.

Not all Southerners were defenders of slavery, and, yes, many were not slaveholders. It was the mean of wealth and power who owned slaves, and it was their defense of their property--their plantations, their economy and their property (including their property in slaves)--that led them to secede from the union to protect their property and political economy and their right to own and enslave human beings.

I really don't know why so many poorer, lower class Southerners were willing to fight and die for the the intersts of the men of power in the South or to become cannon fodder. I have some ideas about this, but I also see it as deeply tragic that poor Southerners aligned their interests with the slave masters rather than the slaves. It would have saved many of their lives if they did not march so willingly--or out of obligation and threat and a sense of duty and pride--under the command of Pickett and other Southern generals.

Their loyalty was to a home and a place, I think, in many cases rather than to defending slavery. If those poor people without slaves had just shot some of the slaveholders rather than at Northerners, the Civil War would have ended sooner and been less bloody. Indeed, those poor white men should have shot the slaveholding masters and then divided up the plantation lands among the poor, both black and white.

I feel sorry for poor people fighting a war to protect imperial economic interests. Right now the American Military is a volunteer army, and its lowest ranks are filled by people from the middle and lower classes. I don't see many upper class people fighting and dying in Iraq. The military is one of the best jobs open to people with just a high school educaton.

I wonder what the approval rating for the war and George W. Bush would be if the sons and daughters of the upper class--all those who particularly benefitted from his tax cuts--had to fight a war that has driven us into a massave debt, whose burden of repayment will fall on the middle class.

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Abe Lincoln's Birthday so I feel that I must honor those who fell for him. On both sides hundreds of thousands of young and old americans died. Brothers, and cousins, and uncles, fathers all fought against each other.I honor all those who chose to fight for their cause no matter which side they were on. Lincoln at Gettysburg honored all that died there, not just the Union soldiers. He was dedicated to all of them and their cause. I have visited Gettysburg a number of times in my life, I have visited as well countless battlefields of that era. While standing on Little round top, you can feel the spirits that roam there. The feeling that all of these men died for what ever cause they felt was just and right for them to do. I honor all of them for they had the fortitude and the balls to carry their individual fight to the next level and sacrificed for a cause no matter the origin.

Imperial MO
Username hidden
(12441 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Lincoln was an asshole!!!!!!! Slavery was and is wrong!!!!!!! segregation is wrong!!!!!! Terrorism by white supremacy was and is wrong!!!!!! Discrimination is wrong!!!! against All races. I have never in my life supported the south and will never do so. I also hold our forefathers responsible for the racial inequality that continues to live today. If I could do one thing worth while I would go back in time. I would make it my lifes work to make my feelings known to the continental congress that slavery will lead to the destruction of the constitution. That this nation would become dependant on the government for all of their needs, and that the people would become lazy and cast blame on them for what was going to happen to their nation after they have gone.

I hold that my rights to view an event in american history is just that, my view. You can cast on me the responsibility for this great conflict, my school and my heritage. This has become a slap down for my view on the most defining moment in our nations history.

I will not further post on this subject since I feel that the insults and down right intolerance has become a game. I have given the reasons for my view and countless examples of why I feel the way I do. You can take it or leave it.

Imperial MO
Username hidden
(12441 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
sorry: I had room to give the interpretive analysis of the Gettysburg Address in the last post.

For a wonderful study of Lincoln and the Civil War and the Gettysburg Address, I recommend: Garry Wills, "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America."

So Lucky: Any questions about my interpretive analysis of the Gettysburg Address? I'd be glad to offer more commentary on it if you are interested. Since you have a complete understanding of the Civil War, do you want to add some thoughts about it and the significance of Lincoln to commemorate him on or near his birthday?

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
To Honor Lincoln on his Birthday: The Gettysburg Address (an interpretive analysis of it will follow in my next post)

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal"

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground-- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us, the living, to stand here, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Short, Quick Interpretive Analysis of Lincoln's Address:

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address can be read as a prose poem divided into three paragraphs or stanzas. The time scheme is: past-present-future. The first paragraph takes us back to the past (1776), the second sets us in the present ("now we are engaged"), and the third paragraph is set in the future (a new birth of liberty).

The subject of the first paragraph is birth (the birth of the USA conceived in liberty), the subject of the second is death (the death of young men on the battlefield), and the third is rebirth (a rebirth of liberty). The address takes us from birth to death to rebirth. Where have we seen that progression before. It is at the heart of the Christian religion. It is the story of Christ, who died for our sins. Lincoln has the young men at Gettysburg sacrificing themselves to overcome the sin of slavery, and their death makes possible a rebirth.

Lincoln's address turns a political battle into sacred ground, so politics is fused with religion: a battle against evil. The first word "Fourscore" is a biblical phrase, and it evokes the language of the Bible, and Lincoln says we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground through words, but the soldiers did through their death. For Lincoln, the battlefield is a transcendent place, not merely secular: it has become hallowed ground. The death of the young men makes possible a resurrection of freedom.

Fourscore takes us back to 1776. When the war began, Lincoln was upholding the Constitution, and if you asked Americans in 1860 when did the USA begin, the right answer would be 1789 with the Constitution. But the Constitution sanctioned slavery, and the Constitution, unlike the Declaration, made no commitment to "all men are created equal." With the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln makes the founding birth of the USA in 1776, not 1789, as the Declaration has an express commitment to equality. Ever since the Civil War, the Declaration has become our founding document, the spirit that precedes the letter of the Constitution, and the Constitution was reconstructed after the Civil War to align with the Declaration by making a commitment in the 13th/14th Amendments to equality for black men.

Lincoln's great Gettysburg Address reveals how deeply the Civil War was about slavery, and it celebrates the overcoming of slavery and the creation of a more perfect union through acts of Christ-like sacrifice.

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You sir are an idiot...OK you can stop anytime now...what a loser...

Imperial MO
Username hidden
(12441 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
What absolutely blows my mind away--and what will sometimes bring tears to my eyes when I teach it in class--is the conclusion of Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address.

In his previous paragraph, he looked upon the war as something that God had willed, in Old Testament justice, against the sin of slavery. (In this paragraph, he sounds like the Samuel Jackson character in "Pulp Fiction" reciting words from Ezekiel before carrying out an execution).

Then Lincoln switches in his final paragraph from Old Testament justice to New Testament justice as he envisions a reconstruction of America governed by charity, replacing the malice that dominated during the war.

What a beautful, gracious, remarkable paragraph. Lincoln was shot on Good Friday by John Wilkes Booth, and some saw Lincoln as dying to save us from the sin of slavery, as Christ had died to make us free....from the sin of slavery to evil. Lincoln also saw the death of young men on the battlefield at Gettysburg a Christ-like sacrifice that had brought forth a new birth--or resurrection--of freedom.

Here's his last paragraph from his Second Inaugural Address:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

If anyone wants my lecture on the Gettysburg Address, just let me know and you can send tuition dollars to my favorite charity: the NAACP's College Education Fund.

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
damn, a typo: It should be "Desecration"

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis agreed on at least one thing.

Davis called slavery, in an 1861 speech, the interest of "transcendent magnitude" in the conflict between North and South.

Lincoln in his 1865 Inaugural Address declared, "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."

Davis and Lincoln shared a belief that conflict over the political economy of slavery was at the heart and soul of secession and the war. Anyone who denies this belongs to the Confederate pride school of history, a school of history that has roots in the effort of Southerners to frame the Civil War as a war of Northern aggression (a 'rape' of the South in Lucky's words) and about economics, not slavery. But this is denial, DEEP DENIAL, out of bad conscience. It is a denial that the South's intent with secession was to defend and protect slavery as an economic institution, a view of slavery that was blind to its moral evil.

Lincoln and the North fought a war to stop the spread of a WMD: the weapon of mass destruction that was slavery. Lincoln and the Republican party did not want to see this WMD spread into new states, but the South wanted to protect its WMD just as Iran wants to protect its nuclear facilities: they felt it as an essential part of their power.

The Civil War, for Lincoln and the North, became a crusade against evil--the evil of slavery, and in his 2nd Inaugural Address, Lincoln saw God willing this war with Old Testament vengeance against those who had broken a convenant with God's Word (and with the Declaration of Independence, the sacred text of the USA).

The North won, and the slaves were emancipated. But White Supremacy persisted in the South, and the KKK became an American terrorist organization, terrorizing a minority tribe into submission to White Supremacy. The NAACP arose to combat the terrorism of the KKK and the mob action of lynching, and then the Civil Rights movement arose to end segregation and legalized White Supremacy, and again many in the South resisted this freedom struggle led by MLK Jr. Southern resistance to end of white supremacy was an insurgency against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with its commitments to equality, liberty and justice.

Slavery = WMD KKK = terrorist group

Lincoln led a war against a WMD that was more dangerous than any possessed by Saddam Hussein. Saddam, it turns out, had no WMDs. The South did. Their tyranny over a minority tribe of peoples destroyed human rights and was a brutal act of repression that made Saddam's crimes look like those of a puppu dog tyrant.

Los Angeles CA
Username hidden
(4376 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 10 
TOPIC: Denial and Descretation of Lincoln on his Holiday, or Slavery as WMD and KKK as terrorists-insurgents